Data collection is used to gather information for a wide variety of academic, business, and government purposes. For example, data collection is necessary for sociological studies, market research, and in the census. To maximize the utility of collected data, all data can be amassed and made available for analysis without any privacy controls. Of course, most people and organizations (“privacy principals”) are unwilling to disclose all data, especially in modern times when data is easily exchanged and could fall into the wrong hands. Privacy guarantees can improve the willingness of privacy principals to contribute their data, as well as reduce fraud, identity theft, extortion, and other problems that can arise from sharing data without adequate privacy protection.
A method for preserving privacy is to compute collective results of queries performed over collected data, and disclose such collective results without disclosing the inputs of the participating privacy principals. For example, a medical database might be queried to determine how many people in the database are HIV positive. The total number of people that are HIV positive can be disclosed without disclosing the names of the individuals that are HIV positive. Useful data is thus extracted while ostensibly preserving the privacy of the principals to some extent.
However, as one might imagine, clever adversaries might apply a variety of techniques to predict or narrow down the set of individuals from the medical database who are likely to be HIV positive. For example, an adversary might run another query that asks how many people both have HIV and are not named John Smith. The adversary may then subtract the second query output from the first, and thereby learn the HIV status of John Smith without ever directly asking the database for a name of a privacy principal. With sensitive data, it is useful to provide verifiable privacy guarantees. For example, it would be useful to verifiably guarantee that nothing more can be gleaned about any specific privacy principal than was known at the outset.
Adding noise to a query output can enhance the privacy of the principals. Using the example above, some random number might be added to the disclosed number of HIV positive principals. The noise will decrease the accuracy of the disclosed output, but the corresponding gain in privacy may warrant this loss. The concept of adding noise to a query result to preserve the privacy of the principals is discussed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/244,800 (attorney docket no. 314792.01/MSFT 5434); U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/291,131 (attorney docket no. 314793.01/MSFT 5425); U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/305,800 (attorney docket no. 314796.01/MSFT 5432); U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/298,563 (attorney docket no. 314797.01/MSFT 5430), and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/316,761 (attorney docket no. 314798.01/MSFT 5431). Some additional work on privacy includes Chawla, Dwork, McSherry, Smith, and Wee, “Toward Privacy in Public Databases,” Theory of Cryptography Conference, 2005; Dwork, Nissim, “Privacy-Preserving Data Mining in Vertically Partitioned Databases,” Crypto 2004; Blum, Dwork, McSherry, Nissim, “Practical Privacy: The SuLQ Framework,” PODS 2005; and Chawla, Dwork, McSherry, Talwar, “On the Utility of Privacy-Preserving Histograms,” UAI 2005.
Even when noise is added to results, adversaries may be able to glean information about privacy principals by running a multitude of queries and comparing the outputs. This problem can be addressed by requiring that each of at most T queries of the data be a simple summation of the result of applying a fixed function to the data pertaining to each privacy principal, and queries beyond the Tth are not answered.
In addition to the above, so-called secure function evaluation techniques, developed in the 1980's, were a major advance in the ability of people, organizations, or other entities (“privacy principals”) to compute a collective result without disclosing their individual data to one another. Secure function evaluation is explored in a variety of academic publications. For a background discussion of secure function evaluation, please refer to Ben-Or, Goldwasser, and Wigderson, “Completeness Theorems for Non-Cryptographic Fault-Tolerant Distributed Computation” (1988), and/or Goldreich, Micali, and Wigderson, “How to Play Any Mental Game” (1987).